The official EPA numbers came out recently for the Fisker Karma and they were much, much lower than many expected. The EPA rated the Karma at a scant 20 mpg on gasoline. Considering the car was supposed to be a green hybrid, it's rating is disappointing, especially when you think that other hybrids of the size can achieve much better numbers. The all-electric (battery) range is rated at 32 miles for a combined 56 mpg-e.

If you were wondering why a car with a hybrid power plant was rated so low on gasoline power, it’s due to the massive weight of the Karma. The Karma has a curb weight of 5,300 pounds. Most of the weight is due to the heavy and expensive lithium-ion battery pack that motivates the Karma in electric mode.

The Fisker Karma weighs nearly as much as an 8-passenger Ford Expedition

With the low economy rating of the Karma and the fact that Fisker was one of the green firms that was loaned $529 million in federal funds, some are afraid it will be the next Solyndra. Solyndra is the solar firm that went under after receiving Federal funds for operation. While the EPA thinks its numbers for the Karma are accurate, Henrik Fisker thinks that drivers will see a better driving range.

Fisker said, "We firmly believe that most owners will get up to 50 miles of driving range on a single charge, and will use our electric-only mode most of the time they drive the car."

Much of the Karma is already made from aluminum, so the place to save weight is going to be the battery pack. This will be something that happens in the future as battery technology improves. Another choice would be going to lighter and more exotic materials for the construction like carbon fiber.

The problem is that the Karma is already priced at about $96,000 and moving to exotic materials would only drive that cost up. So far 1,300 people have placed deposits on the Karma.

quote: Our debt will never be paid. What's it gonna take to end our govt's addiction to spending?

People holding their politician's feet to the fire during times of economic prosperity. However, people would rather just cut taxes than to use that money to pay down the debt. Why pay for things now, when we can force future generations to pay it for us?

Actually not really. Tax revenues have always averaged around 20% of GDP for like 80 years regardless of the tax rates. In reality, making little changes to the tax rates on individuals and business and cap gains has had little effect on overall revenue and the "tax the rich" mantra out now would have an itty bity effect on overall debt. Especially since the top 1% typically have ways to delay paying taxes until a more favorable tax system rolls around. Simply raising income tax rates would just cause them to shift their money into longer term investments, tax shelters, etc. You'd need to rewrite the tax code big time to make any change. The big problem is spending 40 cents of every dollar over our actual revenue and most of that is in non-discretionary spending like Medicare and neither party will touch those sacred cows because it would cost them an election. We are robbing our future for the present and nothing will get done about it until it fails. That's pretty much guaranteed since politicians only care about the next 2-6 years till their next election cycle.